The Kenosha Killer Kid may get off

I beg to differ.  The person who needs help here is someone who uses inflammatory language in an attempt to demean others.  I've seen plenty of your posts - you do this every time anybody argues the other side.  Grow up.

Again - I don't support the kid's actions.  I do wonder where the police were.

"Scrunch crying."  As I watched the kid's performance I wondered...am I the only one that doesn't see tears?  The legal commentator said she has seen "scrunch crying" numerous times, when one wants to portray real crying but can't bring tears, they do just as the kid did.   Scrunch the face and body, flail and make other guestures conveying extreme emotion.  Not saying he wasn't justified in the shooting, and now wishing like hell this thing never happened, just sayin'...

Actually I think the jury will exonerate him.   There's enough to show he was threatened, the nature of the melee, etc.  But where the hell were cops who should have been de-gunning the mobsters?

He made me think of: (if any of you saw these two stories)

 - The guy who deemed himself sheriff of funeral processions, acted as if he had authority to yell and chastize and pull over drivers of cars who accidently got into a funeral procession.  He had designed his own 'uniform' and patch.  Pissed off a lot of drivers, and somebody filmed him and got him called on it.

 - The kid who 'shadowed' people in a hospital, wearing a white coat etc.  It started out as something like "follow your parent at work day", but he segued into giving medical advice to folks, portraying himself as a doctor.

These types crave the kind of attention they can't get, at least not enough of it, on their own merits.  He performed extremely well on the stand, and I'm betting his attorneys had already come to the conclusion that he would do so.

Candy

Then why were you defending...oh, never mind.

And yeah, because I won't tolerate some kid being ginned up by RepubliQ conservitard propaganda and turned into a multiple murderer and I don't mince words about that...I'm the equivalent of that kid. Riiiiight.

Well, yeah. When an attorney does something that would normally be considered extremely stupid--in this case, allowing his client to waive his Fifth Amendment rights--that attorney, if at all competent, must have a compelling reason to do so. My guess is that he put the Kid through multiple mock testimony drills and concluded, probably to his surprise, that doing so would help rather than hurt his client. The Kid's performance, while lacking verisimilitude, was sufficient to win over the audience (scrunch).

This makes me reflect on the "justice" (ha ha ha) system that relies more on individual performances than the facts, the law, or logic. The attorneys for either side, the witnesses, the defendant, even the judge--all have roles to play a la Shakespeare--"all the world's a stage." And how well they play those roles has an outsized influence on the outcome of the trial.

This is the crux of the problem that comes from being tried by "a jury of one's peers." Those "peers" are more often than not immune or resistant to logic, easily swayed by emotional appeals, ignorant of or at least unfamiliar with the law, and statistically, most will lack any higher education. So the "system" is calibrated based on appealing to the emotions of a dozen "average citizens"--yecch. If I was ever a criminal defendant, I would beg the judge for a bench trial rather than my fate being decided by a troop (as in, twelve baboons) of the ignorant. For one thing, statistically, at least three or four of them would be Trumpers. (And Boiler would probably have a similar objection to three or four woke liberals being on the jury, if he were in such a spot.) I consider my "peers" to be university-educated professionals, not some clown who works at Starbucks and whose favorite entertainment is attending monster truck rallies. Elitist of me, I know.

Unlike you, I can't see the remotest justification for the Kid's actions. I see where you're coming from--but for God's sake, the Kid didn't have to be there at all. Doesn't the "duty to retreat" include refraining from deliberately entering a volatile and violent situation? And if we don't have that duty, haven't we all regressed to the Wild West days? One of the first signs back then that a community was maturing was when it delegated authority and the right to use lethal force to its peace officers, NOT the ordinary vigilante schmo.

This might turn out to be a "split the baby" decision that will probably not make anyone happy. They could decide to nail him on any of a variety of lesser offenses--including those involving his illegal possession of a manly man gun--but murder--? Probably not. Becuz, yer allowed to kill people if you're indignant enough, or something.

But he was defending someone's property.  That doesn't count?

Kevin has made his point clear.  Good people need to stay home and allow the criminals to loot.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nyc-man-62-knocked-ground-175653295.html

After this happens, Kevin and friends believe that the victim is allowed to fight back.  

No, Boiler, actually, it doesn't! You are NOT allowed to use deadly force to "defend" someone else's property!

Aside from that, the Killer Kid wasn't defending a goddamn thing when he murdered those people. He was wandering around with his manly man gun, wearing a dazed expression, after embarking on his gun fun joyride.

Good people shouldn't take the law into their own hands and start meting out deadly force. They have neither the training, nor the professional judgment, nor the authority to do so.

I assume you'd be OK if some vigilante shot you because he thought you were picking apples from someone's tree. Naturally, you'd also be OK if someone killed your daughter for perceived trespassing on property that didn't belong to the killer.

You have not the slightest comprehension of what I actually believe. Most of it is much too deep for you.